Posted: Feb 27, 2010 2:47 pm
Agrippina wrote:..
This is not faith, it is merely observation of the evidence presented. I don't believe that a real person existed, any more than I don't believe the exodus or the flood or the creation happened, to me, from my own personal point of view, it's all the same kind of mythology.
You believe whatever your particular cult tells you to believe and I'll follow what my rational logic tells me.
Rational logic would lead to to conclude that Jesus the person was real. Rational historians have put a lot of scholarly work into this question and this is the best result they have.
I posted a short version a few pages back. Jesus as myth doesn't make rational sense.
If you are going to make up a story, you don't create problems for yourself.
People were expecting a messiah that delivered them from whatever, and this messiah would have great power and he would lead them to a new kingdom. The problem is that the Romans killed Jesus (who wasn't claiming to be the messiah anyway-he just said one was coming, just like others were saying). This resulted in a lot of nutty claims, and it's where we get the "he died for your sins" nonsense. No one had predicted this. It was a real problem for early believers and it caused them to split from Judaism.
The early believers, starting with Paul, whose letters are documented, actually turned the religion OF Jesus (and others) into a religion ABOUT Jesus. They made up the parts about him being divine, about dying for sins, and eventually they thought he was always listening to them and answering prayers, whatever.
Historians can only come up with the best explanation they can, understanding that we do not and can not have access to enough documentation. The best and most rational explanation for the strange story of Jesus is that he was a real person that was saying certain things, he was killed, and his followers made up a lot of crazy shit, and you know the rest.